Chris
'One has only to note how the IMF and World Bank set tough policy expectations on recipient nations in the past yet Western nations are now seeking to spend themselves out of trouble by increasing debt.'

The last developed country to borrow from the IMF was Britain in the 1976. The result of the conditions imposed was the demise of the Labour government.
No developed country has gone anywhere near the IMF since, and the IMF has became the lender of last resort for poor countries.
An outline model of the standard stabilization program (tough policy expectations) is given in The Unholy Trinity, Peet, Richard. Wits University Press. 2003.

1. Abolition or liberalization of foreign exchange and import controls;
2. Exchange rate devaluation;
3. Anti-inflammatory domestic programmes, including (a) control of bank credit and higher interest rates; (b) lower state budget deficits through curbs on government spending, increases in taxes, abolition of subsidies; (c) controls on wage increases, and (d) dismantling price controls, and
4. Greater hospitality for foreign private investors.

Basically these conditions equate to agreeing to create a poorly paid docile work force for the use of invading American multinationals. In order to obtain an IMF loan third world countries have to submit to economic slavery.
America controls the IMF. It uses the American habit of coming up with nice sounding phrases such as 'increase international cooperation' which translates as poor countries agreeing to being screwed or they starve.

'And for those of us who believe in the positive role of government, there are many national examples that demonstrate a much fairer distribution of resources than previous centuries in regards to a society’s social policy needs, as shaped by ongoing interaction with interest groups and public opinion.'

Is this for rich countries like Australia or for all? Can we have a healthy economy based on excesses by some and poverty for others?
For a healthy, balance and sustainable economy world wide (which is in our national interest) the IMF, World Bank and the WTO must go.

Political philosophy should be of foremost consideration. The author refers to impending Malthusian catastrophe caused by economic expansionism. The economics and political philosophy in Australia and the west generally (genesis point 50's-60's) - has been the Austrian School through the political philosophy of neo-liberalism (in all guises) and it is needless to say it has been predominant to the point of absolute. I'm not saying here that the Austrian School is lacking intellectual merit nor am I saying that there is a 'school' currently equipped to replace it (which would be impossible in any short time frame barring social anarchy) that wouldn't be regressive in the sense that in the place we are now we have come too far to even turn to socialism (a common view) and/or social democratic capitalism. To make my point economic philosophy has replaced political philosophy as the mainspring of common perception for the common good. In my opinion the root cause of today’s social malaise stem from a lack of political philosophy - meaning not some Hobbesian derivative outcome from those superior, but the generation of true social discourse aimed at ensuring as truer liberty as is possible within the constraints of individual's histories. The likes of Kant & Mills (to name the most eminent) I propose would be horrified by why what we moderns perceive as liberty and the economic, social, & economic foundations that this liberty has manifest.

consider these words:

“What the neutrality of radical equality mandates is nothing less than the legal disestablishment of morality” – Gray.

the author writes (and these are, as stated, social truths):

"There is also the reality that many societies have increasingly adopted progressive policies on race, gender, sexuality and even the environment. In addition, polls show that a majority of nations accept that democracy is the most appropriate political system to enable a nation to encourage and maintain cohesion and meet its various economic, social and environmental needs"

These things are absolute requirements for the near homogenous pseudo-religious pursuits of consumerist & materialist wellbeing within advanced economies.

This is the world we live in

ALL of the usual arguments are primitive power efforts.

And all of them are thoroughly based upon and extended from one or the other ground-pattern of generally uninspected, and, therefore, unconscious, or non-conscious, psycho-physical, or pre-verbally brain-and-nervous-system patterning being asserted, defended, protected, or otherwise exercised.

Thus, all the arguments and competitive struggles everywhere and at all times dramatized by individuals and collectves are not, at root, exchanges of IDEAS, or even of fully consciously inspected and thought-responsible examination or consideration. But all such arguments and struggles are, fundamentally, only primitive confrontations between under-lying psycho-physical patterns, or pre-verbally brain-and-nervous-system-patterned adaptations.

All of the usual confrontations of ideas are of a fixed and pre-determined, and oddly mechanical, and merely mutually contradictory nature. And altogether of such a nature as to be entirely predictable, and pre-decided, and always theatrically-dramatized program of propagandized hyper-statement versus hyper-statement, wherin the individuals, insitutions, and traditions on both sides remain insular, aggressively self-protected and monotonously self-preserved.

As the Bard said--- (tall tales) told by idiots full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (of fundamental significance)

David,

I agree that the IMF and other international institutions need reforming.

However, just how far that reform will go will be determined by balance of power considerations. It is an unforunate reality, but one that that will long remain.

My gut feeling is that diminished US or Western power will not necessarily make things much better. As I have argued previously, the problems we have today are a reflection of a power struggle not just for resources, but the influence of certainn ideas.

We all know what is fair, but each nation or group of nations will seek to serve their interests first.

As a supporter of liberalism myself, I would still argue that the world has progressed in recent decades (including international institutions).

It is just that the task of balancing national and international considerations is proving very hard (perhaps impossible) to achieve.

Hi,
The idea took by the author is very good. I am greatly obliged by the article.

joe

http://finance.bizoppjunction.com

Yes Chris, it is a problem.
How long does the world have to keep afloat the US economy for no other reason than that the US owes so much we cannot afford to let it sink? The US national interest wins again.
Matt
I have long been of the opinion that the concept that the only task of an opposition is to oppose at any cost in order to gain power is where Australian politics has lost the plot.
Is this the sort of thing you are talking about when you say a lack of politically philosophy

Chris,

the text was restrained yet engaging, and it was well worth reading.

in your opinion do you see too much convergance of isms in debates?

there of course needs to be a convergance of isms at points - needing to unify (as you rightly point out) the gulf between self/national interest and that of international/moral responsibility.

another quick Q in an australian context. what in your opinion is the moral commonground? Further, what effect does this have on social function in this country?

regards

You can add to your list the world private central banking system.They too must go.

Individual countries can raise their own capital.When Govts borrow from the Central banks,they conjure the money from cyber space and loan it at interest back to Govts.Let individual Govts raise their own money since the market will naturally devalue their currency if they print more money than their ability to produce.

We don't need to be party to such banking systems that enslave people in debt.

Matt Keyter
"The economics and political philosophy in Australia and the west generally (genesis point 50's-60's) - has been the Austrian School through the political philosophy of neo-liberalism (in all guises) and it is needless to say it has been predominant to the point of absolute."

Matt, you haven't read any original sources of Austrian School economics or political philosophy, have you? Please answer.

If so, what were they? because you certainly haven’t understood the first thing about what you read.

You can access it here: www.mises.org

If Austrian School principles had been 'predominant to the point of absolute' there would be:
- no government policies of 'economic management' causing economic chaos, poverty, disadvantage, legal corruption and dependence on the state at every turn
- no government's self-interested manipulation of the money supply with the resulting booms and busts
- no WTO, IMF or World Bank
- no taking money from Australian citizens and handing it out to corrupt third world governments
- no legal tender laws: a free market in the supply of money
- no handouts for corporations
- no privileges for lobby groups
- no subsidies for industry
- little or no taxation
- little or no government lands
- no government departments whose function is forcible re-distribution of property
- no compulsory, state-sponsored, state-dictated indoctrination centres for political correctness aka government schools
- no restrictions on trade with other countries
- no military adventures overseas in the service of the American empire
- no criminalising of consensual private acts between adults under the name of industrial relations, occupational licensing, or consumer protection
- no race-based laws and policies.

The result would be a small state charged with protecting society from internal and external thugs, to maximize peaceable social co-operation, to minimize the use of aggression as the basis of social co-operation, a steadily rising standard of living, and steadily falling prices: in short, peace, freedom and prosperity

What this means is that perhaps 90 to 95 percent of Australia's current political and economic landscape does *not* comply with the principle of liberty (you should be free to do what you want, so long as you are not aggressing against others). It also does not comply with the philosophy of the Austrian school.

It is laughably ignorant to suggest that the Austrian School world-view is is the predominant political philosophy in Australia. The predominant philosophy is of state-managed capitalism for purposes of national socialism, in other words fascism, in which the powers of government are presumed to be rightfully unlimited, as witness virtually all the discussion of government in the mass media and on this website.

We Australians have forgotten what it is like to live in a free country, where every part of our existence is not checked, registered, taxed and regulated by government as if we were cattle. We have come to accept the slave philosophy that the state rightly exercises significant overriding rights of ownership over us from cradle to grave, in exchange for our whining dependence. The predominant creed is that our freedom is and should be whatever is left over after the state takes and does whatever it wants, subject only to the need for politicians to bribe as many people as seems expedient for them to get back into office and repeat the same lies and thefts next time around.

Matt Keyter,

As far as isms are concerned, they will alwys be around. Different nations, depending on their wealth and stability, will lead many commentators to gravitate towards certain concepts that suit their circumstances. while we in the West view liberalism as dominant, some in poorer nations view the world through structural marxist terms.

As for Australia, though I remain supportive of liberalism as the concept most capable of balancing national and international aspirations, I am worried about just how our policy makers will respond in the future. will they pander to certain interest groups or key demographics to enhance electoral prospects?

how we respond in the future will be key to effective Western leadership for world? If we do not ensure that reform is fair and still progressive (although latter is subjective0, then heaven help us if china and India rise much further to force our society to be that much more competitive. Democracies now face an immense test.

Wing Ah Ling,

I agree with what you 100%. And regret not qualifying what I wrote.

I posted a comment on the article ‘The freemarket bad for the economy but good for schools’ below is an excerpt from that, that will address part of your query:

I kindly suggest to Kevin Rudd (if he hasn’t) to read The Great Transformation (Polanyi) and The Road to Serfdom by (Hayek) [who in my opinion may I say is grossly misrepresented by the rotting neo-liberal fruit - in the sense that in what the ‘Hayekians’ parlay as his, is no way an adequate or respectful positioning of his philosophies] before boring us with any more essays.

I would like to establish and for you to accept my use of the Austrian School as a philosophical base from which economic policy has been originated from and been motivated by in recent decades. The poilitcal philosophy that best suits today is that of Rawls based on a Kantian-liberalism and reinforced through the likes of Dworkin and Ackerman who put forth theoretical points of view (not grasping the reality of humanity) and that political philosophy is the application to the constitution of the state, and to that a constructed moral view point that is somewhat baseless in human history. Absolute is the fact that no modern society is wholly governed by principles of the Austrian School. Our systems are compromises with disparate aspects from philosophies taken and used as tools of governance, control, and in cases servitude. the thrust of 'predominant to the point of absolute' is the use of the Austrian School as the basis for discussion in the ‘public’ sphere of what governmental economic agendas have been i.e. most recently Kevin Rudd in The Monthly lambasting Thatcher, Reagan, & Howard (Howard of all people - mindfully forgetting Keating & Hawke) and painting them with the brush of evil doer equals ‘economic rationalist’. I conclude with my agreeing with your second post when you state the functional reality of what is actually occurring in this state.

Daviy once I’m allowed I’ll respond.

regard

Daviy,

To answer your question directly: My supposition equated a lack of interest, debate, discussion, & understanding within society (i.e. the general public) regarding maters of political philosophy as a lack of political philosophy. A loose term and I regret its usage.

The current climate of ‘general public’ discourse concerning and/or in spite of the trend towards a homogenous politico-philosophical schema is worrisome. There shouldn’t be a prevailing or overriding way. I agree that clashes of ideas are bound to occur; but in my fantasy this happens within a tolerant, liquid, and non-partisan construction i.e. liberal society. It’s useless to acknowledge (but here I go) that there’s enough political philosophy out there - meaning texts to be shaped and informed by. If that was the impression left, sorry. And I agree Australia has lost the plot (plot?). As well as humanity for that matter - attributable to those that ‘wield the sword’ and those that follow them blindly – which, rightly, is their choice!.

My point was directed toward our society therefore the constituents of that society and the apathy demonstrated in the face of the myriad horrible realities presented it. Society being a collective can’t put up a fight. It is up to persons to harmonise in the way they individually see appropriate (and if persons choose not to harmonise then so be it). I guess this is my lament... The political, social, economic, and environmental landscape of modern/western human civilisation isn’t open to choice, let alone informed choice (said hubristically). How is choice (namely a mode of liberalism) to be afforded? What are the frameworks (should there be a framework?) for this choice? I’m unfamiliar to a communal-deconstructionist theory, therefore, I’m at a loss as to how the ‘Zeus’ that is modern society can be unmade and re-pieced without great harm coming to certain sections that call that society home and are proud in doing so.

The sovereign being is burdened with a servitude that crushes him, and the condition of free men is deliberate servility

I agree with the above quote (Georges Bataille) albeit cynically

Wing Ah Ling is 100% correct.We only live under the illusion of freedom and democracy.Socialism as well as corporate facism has destroyed small business and freedom.

Thanks Matt
A follow up question.

<To answer your question directly: My supposition equated a lack of interest, debate, discussion, & understanding within society (i.e. the general public) regarding maters of political philosophy as a lack of political philosophy.>

How are people to be expected to have an understanding when they are not told the truth? We have liberal lies, we have labour lies but if people vote for lies how do they have any idea what they are voting for? I think that is what you are eluding to in the latter part of you post. If it is how do we have a framework that forces politicians to tell the truth?
Isms?
Don't we first of all have to have a system that works before we argue about the 'isms' of how it will be used? There can be as many 'isms' as you want but if the mechanics don't work in the first place no-body is going anywhere.

Daviy,
I don't consider 'institutional' education necessary in developing the minds of people. I believe a near majority of people would consider education, theirs & others, to be of utmost importance. As a society it is a desirable obligation to educate. Education can be facilitated in as many modes as there has been days on this earth. Whatever problems the cancerous politicking of governments the world over cause - even with a complicit media - enough understanding exists within the general population of 'political' realities (however ephemeral) for what they are. This need not be a grievance about incommensurable variants of liberalism. But there is reason to believe grievance enough exists to know that societies view their governments with distrust. What this distrust is is as individual as you and I. How can we further modus vivendi in the face of a ‘trend towards a homogenous politico-philosophical schema’? I, in the end, believe in the individual and that individuals must be proactive in furthering their learning about the countless facets of their landscape alluding to community, economy, politics and society - plus what’s between - as we all do to varying degrees. I think it fatalistic and insipid upon those that avow to an ideal that benevolence will befall them. As I said ‘there’s enough political philosophy out there - meaning texts to be shaped and informed by’ and I maintain that. In my circumstance what opinion I hold is that which I’ve crafted through my own pursuit of further education. I haven’t been to university: I have taken a simple interest in reading. This notion that politics, philosophy and economics are the domain of a neo-nomenklatura or the intelligentsia is something to be derided. As stated before it is an individual’s choice to pursue what ever their notion of the good life is. If someone derives their happiness from Neighbours and talking about celebrity so be it. They’re obviously sated by things other to you/me. To vote and however useless it is in affecting change still counts - for opportunity exists despite whatever ignorance is put upon us.